ITT we fix FATE to not be a retarded bribery system where you have to pay people with rerolls to roleplay
No longer reward players for roleplaying and tell them that it is expected of them to roleplay, not something above and beyond they do for bonuses. Done.
I mean, got any suggestions? It seems like rewarding immersive role play with in game rewards seems disjointed, like Whose Line is it Anyway but with RP. But it also encourages the behavior a lot of GMs want out of their game.
>>43634844
Yeah but then FATE doesn't have any rules
>>43634814
It's not always rerolls though. It can be other things. Though really, if you change FATE is it still FATE? I mean, you could just give fate points for something else.
>>43634814
The only way to fix FATE is to not play it.
ITT: A bunch of butt hurt gamists whose group is passive aggressively driving them away by playing FATE.
>>43634814
>retarded bribery system where you have to pay people with rerolls to roleplay
yeah im pretty sure you guys are playing fate wrong. you dont use fate points to roleplay, you use fate points to do extraordinary things that push the limits of your characters
your gm is just shit
>>43635392
>you use fate points to do extraordinary things that push the limits of your characters
Explain?
>>43634814
Oh hello there, VO.
>>43635392
I kind of agree here and kind of disagree
I agree in that fate points are designed around doing extraordinary things. I mean even the smallest effect is a +2 to a roll, which, looking at the ladder that the system provides, is a pretty hefty jump in ability, like from Fair to Great. The other uses of fate points are even more drastic, in getting to declare story details or becoming the focus of the story however primarily by accepting compels to gain them.
That being said, the fate point economy is about trading the ability to roleplay to earn them. You have to justify an aspect you're giving a bonus to when you add a +2 or make a reroll. You have to accept or pay off a compel whether or not you want the fate points, which requires roleplaying (however mild) regarding your character's aspects.
To each their own as to whether they like or hate the system for that reason (Personally I think it's great as most of my games involve people that are new to role playing games but are familiar with video games and tend to have a tiny competitive or creative streak about them)
>>43634814
/tg/ complaints department here
Have you tried playing D&D?
In my opinion, five of the greatest flaws with the fate point economy are as follows:
1. There is no granularity to compels. If your character does something ill-advised that places them in a vaguely-defined reasonable amount of trouble, that earns a fate point. If your character does something that completely obliterates the heroes' chances, that earns a fate point. There should be compels that grant only 0.5 fate points, compels that grant 1.5, 2, 2.5, or 3 fate points, and so on.
2. Compels cost fate points to refuse. I can understand the logic behind this, namely, that players should be encouraged to bring their character into the spotlight and highlight their characters, but this is ultimately an arbitrary and unnecessary rule. Accepting a compel is a zero-sum effect: make a bad decision or have something bad happen to you, and gain a fate point in exchange. Refusing a compel is a net loss: nothing happens, and you lose a fate point. This means that every time a GM compels a player, it averages out to a *net loss* for the player, which is rather distasteful.
3. Fate points are completely worthless when used to invoke an enemy's aspect, because it gives that enemy a fate point. Why is it ever a good idea to spend a fate point to invoke an enemy's aspect and hand over that fate point, instead of simply invoking one's own aspect or an aspect on a scene or an object?
4. Free invocations create potentially never-ending success spirals. Once a player succeeds at generating a free invocation (e.g. create an advantage, inflicting a consequence), they gain the benefits of having a new aspect to work with or having sapped away an opponent's consequence slot *on top of* what amounts to a free fate point. The free invocation can then be used to fuel another create an advantage or attack with a free invocation, which in turn leads to another create an advantage or attack with a free invocation, and so on and so forth.
(Continued.)
>>43636392
5. If you play a character who has high Contacts, Empathy, Investigate, Lore, and/or Notice (in Fate Accelerated, high Careful and/or Clever), it is quite likely that you will shatter the fate point economy by way of using create an advantage actions in such a way that you discover information while simultaneously generating free invocations. This stacks more and more free invocations onto the table, which in turn leads to the success spiral described in >>43636392
Properly used, this renders the fate point economy irrelevant. It is too powerful on paper, and it is too powerful in actual play as well (source: no less than three of my own Fate PCs who have been investigative/information-gathering types; believe me when I say that I have gone for sessions without failing a single roll due to this invocation-stacking success spiral).
Ryan Macklin, one of the main writers for Fate, actually acknowledges this and proposes a fix here:
http://ryanmacklin.com/2014/10/fate-the-discover-action/
http://ryanmacklin.com/2014/10/aspects-vs-information/
>>43636270
... ... ... ... ... wut?
I played Fate once. It was fun.
>>43636434
You should probably lurk moar.
>>43634814
But that's wrong.
I'm actually sad none of the GMs I've played with ever compel people and the 'fate point economy' is completely stale while I'm the only one compelling myself and using fate points to fuck shit up.
Then people wonder why my character with 5 stunts and a steady influx of Fate Points (and usually one or two consequences filled up at all times) can do insane shit but theirs need a bunch of CAA-created aspect groundwork first.
>>43636392
>no granularity to compels
Well actually there's something called 'escalation' and it's when the GM compels you to do something insane but you go NUH UH, NOT DOING THAT FOR LESS THAN TWO FATE POINTS or THREE and so on.
And if you're only mildly inconveniencing yourself then you shouldn't get any fate points anyways. Fate points are meant to be awarded when they make things interesting, to shake things up.
ITT: The retards of /tg/ meetup.
Nice choice of image OP. Very fitting for your post.
>>43639121
>but theirs need a bunch of CAA-created aspect groundwork first
Given the free invocation success spiral endemic to Fate Core, it is not unlikely that a free invocation from a create an advantage action can carry a character quite succinctly into further create an advantage actions.
>escalation
Escalation was in previous versions of the Fate rules, but it is not in Fate Core. Additionally, the escalation rules are rather clunky; if the player is foolish enough to accept the initial fate point (because they *know* that refusing the compel will result in a net loss of fate points), then they are no longer eligible for initial fate points. Why, pray tell, is this the case?
>And if you're only mildly inconveniencing yourself then you shouldn't get any fate points anyways.
I would like to think that it is possible for a character to inconvenience themselves via an aspect in such a way that it is surely worth some degree of mechanical acknowledgment, yet not enough to warrant a full fate point. That is why I do not think "half a fate point" would not be unwarranted, particularly if the cost for refusing compels is excised from the system.
>>43639405
>CAA
I dunno, it depends. You can get a maximum of two free invokes from CAA, but if you use a free invoke to get another two, at best you're gambling on a 1:1 trade, which could be done without the free invoke to begin with.
>Escalation was in previous versions of the Fate rules, but it is not in Fate Core.
Oh, my b. My group (and mostly me when I'm running) tend to borrow most of the nittier-grittier rules from SotC, which included escalation along with adding back in all the skills that'd been streamlined/deleted in Fate Core.
I do not think the GM turning down an 'escalation' is worth losing the initial fate point at all; if anything, the GM can just say "No, it's not worth two fate points" and reiterating the choice between accepting or refusing the compel.
As for the granularity, I still don't think there are any such situations. You can roleplay your character in a way that inconveniences you and the party 'slightly but not much', and worst case scenario you can just gain a retroactive fate point if said inconvenience turns into something bigger.
>>43636392
>If your character does something that completely obliterates the heroes' chances
This goes under considerations of what makes a good compel. This is not. But that's really besides the point; the problem is not that you'd reward someone for making the team fail a scene, the problem is that someone thought it was a funny idea in the first place. The problem is not in the rules, it is in the That Guy player that thinks it is funny to act that way and trash the adventure.
> Accepting a compel is a zero-sum effect
Here I disagree. Taking a story complication and accepting a FP for that is not zero-sum. If it is, the compel is probably too harsh. On the other hand, I don't think I completely agree with refusing compels costing FP, but in decision-based compels, if nobody can agree on the decision, the compel is retracted. Evil Hat's explanation to the cost went something like, if you hate interesting things happening to you so much that you refuse them, it should carry a cost.
> Fate points are completely worthless when used to invoke an enemy's aspect, because it gives that enemy a fate point.
Those FP (aka "hostile invokes") are granted only after the scene is over.
>>43639556
(cont.)
As for the CAA escalation, you have some valid concerns there, but also consider these counterpoints.
In a conflict, trying to CAA just for the free invoke instead of the narrative effect of the aspect, you are always banking on the chance of getting a result that grants you two free invokes. Otherwise you're just in the hamster wheel of expending your previous free invoke to power your next attempt to CAA - and that the aspect invoke makes sense in the context of your next action. CAA is also takes an action in conflict, so when you CAA + attack, you also could have done two attacks instead. Which of the two is a better idea is situational.
CAA is also a setup maneuver, not something that resolves anything, so simply spamming it in a conflict gets you nowhere. You could pile them up for some big finish of course, but there two things working against it. Firstly, situation aspects exist only as long as they make sense. Something might happen that makes the aspect go away, taking your unused free invoke(s) with it. The opposition might also wisen up to your tactic (whatever is the narrative activity that is expressed through CAA mechanic) and start overcoming the aspects, negating them and taking away your free invokes.
CAA escalation is not a death spiral if the GM knows what to do.
>>43639747
Oh right, one more point is that the opposition is not just going to sip tea while you go through your CAA actions and set free invokes. They're also acting on their turns, doing their stuff like attacking the protagonist side's people.
>>43639496
>You can get a maximum of two free invokes from CAA
This is not the point I am trying to make.
If you are making a roll to create an advantage with a bonus of X+1 against a difficulty of X, you have only an 18.52% chance of creating a new situation aspect (this is very good when "aspects are always true" and you have just changed the scene!) with two free invocations, a 43.21% chance of creating a situation aspect with a free invocation, a 19.75% chance of generating a boost, and only a 18.52% chance of failing.
If your bonus is instead X+2, you have a 38.27% chance of producing a situation aspect with two free invocations, a 43.21% chance of creating a situation aspect with one free invocation, a 12.35% chance of spawning a boost, and only a 6.17% chance of failing.
These are very good odds, particularly since the free invocations can fuel further create an advantage actions, which lead to even more free invocations, and so on and so forth. It is a low-risk, high-reward method of warping a scene to your whims.
>if anything, the GM can just say "No, it's not worth two fate points"
This is effectively the same as introducing granularity to compels in the first place, which is what I am pushing for.
>You can roleplay your character in a way that inconveniences you and the party 'slightly but not much'
Less "slightly but not much," more "moderately but perhaps not worthy of a full fate point." The line is blurry, but the definition of what is "truly" worth a full fate point is ambiguous as well.
>>43639556
>The problem is not in the rules, it is in the That Guy player that thinks it is funny to act that way
The context here is not necessarily a player offering to do such a thing; the context is the GM compelling the character to do so, in which case the character could certainly stand to gain more than one fate point from it, hence granularity to compels (which you implicitly improve of, calling them "escalation" instead).
>>43639747
I am not speaking about create an advantage spiraling in a *conflict*. It is generally more useful outside of a conflict.
In a conflict, you are behooved to repeatedly use the skill at the peak of your pyramid (or skills at the top of your columns) ad nauseam, because the math for opposed rolls leans *very sharply* in favor of the "brute force, high numbers" approach. Narratively, this does not make sense, but mechanics-wise, Fate absolutely encourages throwing your highest number about and shying away from your lower numbers.
If that top skill happens to be an attack skill, the system further coaxes you to repeatedly attack with it exchange after exchange. This is why I mention in >>43636392:
>inflicting a consequence
>having sapped away an opponent's consequence slot
Given the way stress works (especially with how it "rolls up"), wearing away an opponent with what amounts to "scratch damage" is a brutally efficient method of taking down an enemy, and all the more so when the entire party can pitch in and fell an enemy with one-shift hits. It is particularly embarrassing when an enemy finds themselves having to use a moderate consequence to absorb a 1-stress hit simply because their stress track is full!
A tie is no hindrance to an attack; it generates a boost anyway.
A success with style is particularly cruel, since it can both inflict stress (which still rolls up) and generate a boost to boot. The free invocations created by consequences can then be immediately tagged to further empower your attacks against your target.
All of this changes given an Armor rating of at least 1, which immediately turns the tables back towards the "continuously spam create an advantage actions, then invoke them all at once during an attack" method.
Fate's mechanics fail entirely at encouraging cinematic combat; the tactics are dull and it is up to the GM and the group to make it easy through narrative circumstances, which is no different from any other RPG.
Eh, not quite the discussion I was expecting to find in this thread.
Anyway, in regards to granular FP rewards,
1) you can hack them in if you please, since Core is a framework,
2) my gut feeling says it is a bad idea.
Now there's a lot of veteran Fate GMs, plus Evil Hat's devs, in the G+ group at plus.google.com/communities/117231873544673522940 so you could do well and ask about that over there. In fact, if you don't I might later, since they'll likely will have some good insight (and tell my why my gut feeling is right).
itt: OP baits
>>43639556
>Those FP (aka "hostile invokes") are granted only after the scene is over.
If a player invokes an aspect of an enemy using a fate point (but not a free invocation, mysteriously enough), that fate point goes into the GM's pool in the next scene. If you are playing Accelerated rather than Core, the fate point actually goes into the GM's pool *immediately* (Fate Accelerated p29).
The player has effectively generated a "doom point" against the party for the next scene. Now, why would the player do that rather than simply spending a fate point to invoke one of the PC's own aspects, which would earn the same +2 bonus or reroll and *not* go into the GM's pool for the next scene?
>>43640004
>>43640131
As an aside, one of my acquaintances happens to have worked on a modification to Fate Core that attempts to inject a sense of mechanical tactics into its conflict system. I hope that at least one person here can make good use of it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Qa9VSFjH9reUTEmQMxzGEpPYz00Tw3QMWOCrdtOKmk/edit
Bear in mind that this document is from 2012, so it is surely heavily outdated by now. I will see if I can extract a more up-to-date version from said acquaintance.
>>43640131
I feel the need to belabor the point about so-called "scratch damage" here:
What is the logic behind the design of the stress subsystem? Who thought that it is in any way "cinematic" or "narrative" to have taking down an enemy with "scratch damage" be a highly effective tactic?
A single inflicted consequence generates a free invocation, which in turn leads to more accurate attacks and thus a greater chance of inflicted the aforementioned "scratch damage," which then causes stress to roll up and eventually take an enemy out.
>>43640382
Think of it as graze points and lives in the popular curtain fire shooting game Touhou Project.
In a story, it's rare that you have a protagonist or antagonist to die off without a struggle. Similarly, FATE HAS avoidance damage until the scratch kills them.
>>43640382
>I decided to do away with Stress entirely
>no-Stress consequence-only combat
>mfw every session is lethal as fuck, no one fucks around with needless advantages because one bad roll might mean getting snowballed to hell
I always thought of a Fate stress as a compromise between character competence and lethality. On the one hand, Fate characters have a safety buffer which makes it hard to take them down in one hit. On the other, the way stress is taken means that game never turns into slow HP grinding.
>>43641775
Which rules were you using for recovering Consequences? (hope that wasn't a trollpost)
>>43634814
I find every spin off of FATE to be better then Fate Core itself.
Just the tiny difference all add up to something much better.
If you are worried about fixing fate? Don't play fate core.
>>43641742
I am not quite certain you understand what I am referring to: 1-shift hits rolling up beyond the defender's ability to absorb them.
After a certain point, dealing a 3-stress hit to the target is functionally the same as a 1-stress hit to the target (so the attacker may as well reduce the stress dealt by 1 to generate a boost); how exactly is this justified in the narrative?
>>43641775
Doing away with stress means that even a 1-shift attack is enough to force a mild consequence, which generates a free invocation that can be used to assure landing another 1-shift attack for a moderate consequence, and so on.
That reduces conflicts to an even more mechanically simplistic form, which I doubt is ideal. There would be very little point to attempting to create an advantage during a conflict.
![[thumbs up].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/G5LdeeK.jpg "[thumbs up].jpg")
>>43641916
They recover even without a Lore roll but you can speed them up if you pull one off (they do take real time to patch up the wounds or whatever so it's not a fire-and-forget roll).
>>43641969
It forces people to actively use their fate points smartly, no one wants to save them up for some kind of mega-attack precisely because 'chipping away' is more effective.
My only real complaint about FATE is grappling is broken as fuck
FATE points aren't there to bribe you into roleplay. At least its never been that way with my group.
I think of them as almost a... well fate manipulation system system to manipulate the narrative.
Something bad happens to you early on as a result of a compel later on you can cash that n when in a desperate situation.
Makes the plot feel more like that of a movie or book.
If you have to bribe your players to RP you've got shitty players
>>43634814
Take FATE books. Pour gasoline on them. Light them on fire. Fixed.
